- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1665 OF 2016 C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1666 OF 2016 IN RSA No. 1665/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. M.K. SARASWATHI W/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 2. SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRAKUMAR S/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT #583, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, KRS ROAD,KAVERI BHAVANA, HOOTGALLI, BELAVADI, MYSORE - 570 018. 3. SRI. MAHESH KUMAR S/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, (APPELALNT NOS.1 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.55/1, POST OFFICE COMPOUND, CHAMPION REEFS, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 115. 4. SMT. ANITHA KUMAR D/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 W/O. EDISONPLABO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O NO.1216, 4TH CROSS, HAL, III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 075. 5. SMT. MANJUSHREE D/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, W/O, HARSTATAL, AGED ABOUIT 55 YEARS, R/O NO.1216, 4TH CROSS, HAL, III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 075. 6. VANITHA RAJKUMAR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE MUTHUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. RAJAKUMAR LUMUMBA, #120/C, PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, HENNUR CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 084. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SOWMYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. R. JAYAKUMAR S/O .P. RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.RATHNA COTTAGE "A" BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, PIPE LINE, ROBERTSONPET, KGF, KOLAR - 563 225. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.06.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.03/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF, DISMISSING - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE SUIT AND COUNTER CLAIM AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.139/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, KGF AND ETC. IN RSA No. 1666/2016 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. M.K. SARASWATHI W/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 2. SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRAKUMAR S/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT #583, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, KRS ROAD, KAVERI BHAVANA,HOOTGALLI, BELAVADI, MYSORE - 570 018. 3. SRI. MAHESH KUMAR S/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, (APPELALNT NOS.1 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.55/1, POST OFFICE COMPOUND, CHAMPION REEFS, KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 115. 4. SMT. ANITHA KUMAR D/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, W/O. EDISONPLABO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O NO.1216, 4TH CROSS, HAL, III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 075. 5. SMT. MANJUSHREE D/O. LATE MUTHUKUMAR, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 W/O, HARSTATAL, AGED ABOUIT 55 YEARS, R/O NO.1216, 4TH CROSS, HAL, III STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 075. 6. VANITHA RAJKUMAR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE MUTHUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. RAJAKUMAR LUMUMBA, #120/C, PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, HENNUR CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 084. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SOWMYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. R. JAYAKUMAR S/O .P. RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.RATHNA COTTAGE "A" BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, PIPE LINE, ROBERTSONPET, KGF, KOLAR - 563 225. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.06.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.09/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.139/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, KGF AND ETC. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred by the legal representatives of the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2016 in R.A.No.3/2014 and R.A.No.9/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.G.F dismissing the appeals and modifying the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2013 in O.S.No.139/2006 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, K.G.F. dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004. The vendor of the plaintiff Mohanraj had acquired the said property through an allotment from the KGF Sanitary Board vide endorsement dated 28.09.1952. It is further stated in the plaint that, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 the plaintiff secured license from the competent authority and as such, put up construction in the suit schedule property. 4. It is further averred in the plaint that, the defendants without any semblance of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property is trying to interfere with the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.139/2006 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 5. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. 6. It is the specific case of the defendants that, KGF Sanitary Board has allotted the schedule property to the defendants for upset price and as such, the defendants are in possession of the same and accordingly, the defendants have sought for dismissal of the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 7. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings and records formulated the issues and additional issues for its consideration. 8. In order to establish their right, the plaintiff has himself examined as P.W.1 and one witness by Ilangovan examined as P.W.2 and has produced fourteen documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P14. The defendant No.1(c) examined as D.W.1 and marked seventeen documents as Exs.D1 to D17. 9. The Trial Court after considering the material placed on record, by its judgment and decree dated 05.11.2013 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as well as the counter claim filed by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed R.A.No.9/2014 and the defendants have filed R.A.No.3/2014. 10. The First Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 13.06.2016 dismissed R.A.No.3/2014 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 allowed R.A.No.9/2014 filed by the plaintiff and as such, the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2013 in O.S.No.139/2006 was modified by grating relief to the plaintiff for relief of permanent injunction. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred R.S.A.No.1665/2016 and R.S.A.No.1666/2016 respectively. 11. Heard Smt. Sowmya R., learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. E.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, both the Courts below have committed an error in rejecting the claim made by the defendants wherein, the suit property as claimed in the written statement by the defendants has been allotted by KGF Sanitary Board and therefore, findings recorded by both the Courts below requires to be interfered with based on the documents produced by the defendants namely, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 Tax Register (Ex.D9) and Receipts (Exs.D12 to D16) and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 13. Per contra, Sri.E. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, the plaintiff had purchased the schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 (Ex.P1) and therefore, the plaintiff had establish the right over the property in question. However, the defendants have not produced any cogent material to establish their right and accordingly, sought for dismissal of these appeals. 14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the findings recorded by both the Courts below would indicate that, the plaintiff is claiming right over the property in question based on the registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004. 15. It is also forthcoming from the documents produced by the plaintiff that, the KGF Sanitary Board has granted the schedule property as per the Grant Order - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 dated 28.09.1952 to the plaintiff. The defendants are claiming right over the property mentioned in the written statement/counter claim based on the grant said to have been made by the KGF Sanitary Board. However, the defendants have not produced the relevant title deed to prove that the schedule property belongs to the defendants. 16. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration, the allotment letter as per the endorsement at Ex.P7 and the registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 (EX.P1), I am of the view that, the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and decreed the suit in O.S.No.136/2006. 17. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration, declaration of law made by this Court in the case of Hullappa vs. The State of Karnataka, through Deputy Commissioner, Bidar and others reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4958 wherein, it is held that, in a suit for - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31145 RSA No. 1665 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1666 of 2016 declaration, the parties have to produce the relevant title deeds to establish their right over the property in question and the Civil Court cannot grant declaration based on the record of rights, tax paid receipts or some communication or letters which cannot be considered as a title document. 18. In that view of the matter, since the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission. 19. Accordingly, these Regular Second Appeals are dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32